The Russians were told to focus on swing states, on purple states.

[Sophia4]

The purple states are only so crucial because we have the electoral college.

Hillary won the majority of popular votes. If we did not have the electoral college, if the popular vote decided the election, if votes in populous states like California counted for as much as votes in less populous states like Montana, the Russians would have had a harder time gaming our presidential election. Their efforts would have been far more obvious.

Amend the Constitution to end the electoral college.

[PJMcK]

1. This is absolutely correct

The unbalanced nature of the Electoral College meant that the difference between Trump's win and Clinton's loss was roughly 70,000 votes in four states.

The Electoral College is an antiquated aberration that must be replaced by a popular vote. In our 24/7 interconnected world, the EC doesn't make any sense at all. More importantly, it invalidates the concept of "one person, one vote" since voters in less populous states have more influence in the EC than more populous states.

[Gabi Hayes]

2. This will not happen, anymore than DC residents getting to vote for their own reps in congress

The only constitutional convention you’ll see is when six or seven more states go all pug, from governor to their legislative houses

They’re alarmingly close as it is

Let’s hope for a blue wave in November

[unblock]

3. The electoral college is a historical relic that outlived any usefulness it once had, but fraud risk

Is not a compelling argument against it.

In fact, arguably its better than nationwide popular vote, where fraud risk shifts from battleground states where there might be members of both parties around to monitor, to highly partisan strongholds where one party can more readily overstate votes out of sight of the other party.

[Sophia4]

5. We need paper ballots that can be recounted manually.

[mvymvy]

8. Current System Maximizes Incentive & Opp to Determine Election

The National Association of Secretaries of State, on a bipartisan basis (21 Democratic, 33 Republican, and 1 Independent members), stands by the integrity of our elections.

The current system makes it easier to determine the winner of the Electoral College by microtargeting in one of the dozen battleground states.

There was allegedly specific targeting by Russians of "purple states," or swing states, that are critical to the outcome in the Electoral College.

With the current system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), a small number of people in a closely divided “battleground” state can potentially affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.

537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

The National Popular Vote bill would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

[Blue_Tires]

4. Wow... All this outside money, influence and ratfucking

just to defeat one woman...

And she still got 3 million more votes... But sadly we have ignored another golden opportunity to have a serious, honest discussion about reforming the electoral college

[mvymvy]

7. 61% of the way to reforming the Electoral College

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

[mvymvy]

6. Instead, The National Popular Vote Bill

There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, state legislation, The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.